There is another way to do the blobs that no one mentioned. Go with the min radius your equipment needs and use that toward the back with a veiw block and your larger radius toward the front, that way you can have the look of a 30" radius in way less space. You can also hide the track in the blob compleatly.
Choops Here are a couple drawings with dimensions to help you get started. Note the 30"radii minimum. Steve
Here are a couple drawings with dimensions to help you get started. Note the 30"radii minimum. Steve
I'd definitely go with one of the above with 30 inch minimum radius if I had that space.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have spent some free time in Anyrail working on some of the ideas that have been suggested here. I worked on a couple basic penninsula blobs like this:
And a G shaped idea:
But, all the variations on these two ideas I came up with lead to narrow isles, limited curve radii, and most of the space taken up by mainline. I even came up with this crazy saw-tooth plan that gives me the isle space and radii that I want, but will require a lot of curved turnouts and tight curves for industries.
I am still thinking about that one. I have taken some of these ideas and modified a single layer plan that gives me 32" curves, 3 foot isles, lots of switching, still a decent mainline, and would be easy to build and for me to operate.
The bonus with this last plan is that I already have all the turnouts, track, and structures to build it. And considering I have over 1000sq. ft of foam sheet that I saved from the old layout, it should go together quick once the room is finished. Not doing a two level HO layout leaves me open to adding a lower level for my On30 equipment eventually. I am still thinking about things though, so who knows when inspiration will strike.
Another option entirely would be to extend a couple of peninsulas from the long walls. If you want to maintain the 2-foot maximum reach, you can still make a 4-foot wide peninsula since both sides would be accessible. The wider peninsula would let you create a larger scene, or you could use a view-block across it to get a longer apparant run.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
DoughlessThe multi blobbed sketches have many tight radius curves and the OP plans have none, even broader if he wants.
I wouldn't typically consider the 28" radius HO curves with easements in my "G" sketch to be "tight". For the Original Poster's planned 60' or less rolling stock and all 4-axle power, that should be more than sufficient. John Armstrong pointed out that too large a minimum radius may limit one in a given space just as much as one that is too small.
One nice thing about the "G" is that it eliminates a duckunder or gate, potentially increases the length of the visible main line, and provides easy ramps down to subterranean staging (if desired). But the "G" does introduce more curved track overall.
Of course, much depends on what the builder wants to accomplish in terms of era, locale, etc.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Cuyama: Ah yes, I see that and that does change things and make sense.
Everybody: I'm glad that we can express opinions of choices and personal layout preferences without taking offense.
Just pointing out something the original poster may not observe at first blush. The multi blobbed sketches have many tight radius curves and the OP plans have none, even broader if he wants. Going from broad to tight can change the feel of the layout and the type of railroad he's trying to represent.
Just pointing that out in case the original poster has a specific vision for what he/she is trying to do.
- Douglas
DoughlessG shaped plan does not allow the operator to follow the train
Depends. Many good "G" designs have the train entering hidden staging at that point. That's what I assumed in my very rough sketch, but didn't take time to show.
I agree with rob. the sketckes I supplied are very rough designs to show other options that can be done in the space by the origonal poster. If a narrow isle for a short stretch gains you an additional 30 feet of main line it is worth it.
Steve
The basic G shaped design is very similar to how parts of my layout are arranged.
rrebellYou need 30" walkways except for very short distances. Don't know how you could do that with the three blobs, draw anothe with the center being a dead end peninsula.
I try to maintain 36" if at all possible. The "three blob" arrangement could yield wider aisles for most of the room if benchwork away from the turnback curves could be reduced. It looks to me like there's plenty of opportunity to squueze more aisle space around the peninsula everywhere but right at the end.
The aisle here narrows to about 22" adjacent to the turnback blob, but is back to 36" within a few feet. There are also some passing areas on the far end of the blob so the narrowest spot doesn't become a bottleneck.
To get all this to fit (along with the remaining benchwork and two other aisles on either side of this area that aren't visible in the photos), some locations had to get really shallow. The one above is directly adjacent to the peninsula blob and isn't much wider than the space required for track. I was willing to live with this compromise because it allowed for a much longer mainline run and more pleasing scenes elsewhere.
Here's the opposite side of the peninsula. Again note how quickly the benchwork narrows to expand aisle width.
Rob Spangler
Yes the G is awkward!
As Cuyama mentioned, finding another foot of width makes a difference.
The OP indicated that he has spent time doodling and comes back to the two plans he posted.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of designing spaghetti noodle benchwork to fit as much run into a space as possible. I would feel uncomfortable just being in the layout room if all I had was 24 to 36 inch aisles to move around in and center backdrops blocking my view of anything that isn't directly in front of me....but maybe I'm claustrophobic.
And the G shaped plan does not allow the operator to follow the train, since it ducks into the backdrop at the base of the peninsula and requires a quick run to the other side to catch up, if that matters to Hobbez.
HobbezI really need wider than 24" isles and can't get them without going down to 26" curves.
It's not a problem to narrow down the aisles for short distances. Think of your aisles as a double track mainline (for people) with a couple of single track bridges. My aisle is single track with a passing siding . You also have the option of using broad curves in the corners and hiding the tighter curves on the blobs.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I am working up a blob idea and a G idea atm and will post them up asap for comment, but am having the same problem with them both. I really need wider than 24" isles and can't get them without going down to 26" curves. I'll keep working on it.
I should have mentioned in the OP (Ill go add it now) that I model the Bangor & Aroostook in the late 80's. 60' cars are the norm, but nothing much longer. All power is 4 axle.
Cuyama's plan and one or two others feature staggered loops near the entry. The "blank" space at one side of the door could be a location for an industry on a long dead-end spur, or maybe a location for a workbench. In fact, maybe both, with the workbench below the industry.
Tom
This back-of-the-envelope very rough sketch shows how two "blobs" (turnback curves) and a "G" shape can efficiently use a long, narrow room. The key is allowing the benchwork edges to curve and benchwork depths to vary. This exercise was done at 28" radius with easements, but would probably fit a little better at 26" or so.
If another foot or so of width could be found, the layout would benefit.
Of course, much depends on the Original Poster’s planned layout purpose, locale, era, and prototype. Staging would be an excellent addition to nearly any layout of this size.
John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a great source for learning the best practices of layout design, and coincidentally this is a layout shape Armstrong often favored.
Choops Try staggering the blobs. you ha a lot of lenght. Here is my first Idea. Dont waste too munch time on laying out the towns at this point. You want to focus on where you want your main line to run. No ducunder in theis plan also. the staging yard would be below. from point A to point A. Steve
Try staggering the blobs. you ha a lot of lenght. Here is my first Idea. Dont waste too munch time on laying out the towns at this point. You want to focus on where you want your main line to run. No ducunder in theis plan also. the staging yard would be below. from point A to point A. Steve
Have you considered a folded loop? If the idea of a center peninsula seems to have lost its general appeal over time, or if you really don't want to have to slide through thin aisles in order to have one (think of your physical difficulties...), a folded loop allows the modeller to have a single long main, even with sidings, that crosses over itself at some point.
I have to say that I like Choops suggested plan. That is if you can live with the narrow isles (sp?). Things are going to be pretty close to the edges of the layout.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
The upcoming June MR will have a track plan for a Conrail-inspired layout. It seems to have an interesting footprint that might give you some good ideas for adapting to your space. Your prototype doesn't have to be Conrail, of course.
A few thoughts:
Personally, I think the space you have is about perfect for a lone wolf layout. Long shelves with enough width for broad radii curves. A larger layout would just be more of a hassle to complete and maintain, imo.
I think the helix idea is a good one, it fits well into the space. The single level layout is nice, but I would lose the loco storage and pop a small dipsy-doodle curve up from the bottom shelf to fill the space a bit and to break up the straightness of the run.
David makes a good point about what you are modeling, if anything in particular. A modern themed layout would not look good using the multi-turnback blob idea. While equipment might negotiate the curves, the longer equipment of the modern era would look bad on those tight curves......and you would now have a lot of them. If you were doing a 1930's to 50's coal hauler with 34-40 foot hoppers and 2-8-0 locos....maybe.
My personal preference would be to make the radii as broad as possible no matter what the theme or plan. I think you could make them even broader in either plan you've posted.
Some good thoughts going on here, thanks for the suggestions. I never considered narrowing the sides to get a center blob and still be able keep good isles and good looking radius. I will definatly head back to Anyrail and think about that idea. That's why I come here, lots of great ideas.
HobbezThere isnt enough room for a turnback in the center
Sure there is. With good easements, almost everything in HO will go around a 24" radius. It doesn't look that great, but depending on your preferences, turnaround loops look bad anyway. Why not just hide the track that makes up the loop?
You have 132 inches. A 24" radius turnaround will take about 52". That leaves 80" for aisle and layout against the wall. There is nothing wrong with pinching the aisle down to 24" for a short distance (the bathroom doors in my house are all 24"). You just need to narrow your layout shelf down to 16" for 5 or 6 feet where it is across the aisle from the blob.
Why give up a potential 60 feet (out and back) of mainline just to maintain an overly generous minimum radius?
In any case, I'd suggest putting the end of the peninsula near the door. This is where people will congregate so that's the logical spot for the extra empty floor space. Since you're doing a liftgate, it is also the logical spot to narrow the benchwork.
What´s wrong with your first (single level) layout idea? It´s big enough for a fairly long run, got plenty of operational interest and will be awsome looking when scenery abd detail is put in. It´ll take you some years to build and will be fun to operate, without having the need of a crew of 10 people.
Edit: If you add an access from the right side of the layout (looking from the entrance) to the staging yard, you effectively can simulate point to point operation.
I´d say go for it!
Personally I would use a return loop where you show the helex and then on the other side would put a return loop set forward a bit so you still have a 30" walkway, the main runs giving the effect of double tracked. The depth can be as narrow as 19" on the main. Then on the oposite end I would put a penisula in like a giant E. This pennisula could be around 34" wide.
It looks like you're on the right track, so to speak. It might be possible to expand the helix idea with up and down helices in the same space. That could make for a much longer continuous run. This idea could be further expanded with a branch on the upper or lower level, or both. If you do that, it seems that the branch junction(s) should be on the far right wall.
You mention physical problems. I don't know what those problems are, and it's none of my business anyhow. But these things can get worse with age. Building and operating a complex double deck layout like I've described might become pretty labor intensive as the years go by, so it might be worthwhile to consider a simpler layout. You know your capabilities far better than I do.
Here's a thought for a simpler plan: Build a staging yard along the North long wall. This will eventually be hidden by low hills, building flats, etc. as appropriate. I wouldn't plan on hiding it so thoroughly that it's hard to reach or see. The main line emerges from staging and runs easterly along that North wall till it curves to follow the East Wall. Continue along the South wall, then the West, crossing in front of the entry. When the track comes back to the North wall, a switch ties into the end of the staging area, allowing continuous running. The main line drops lower as it continues along the North wall, in front of the hidden staging yard. When it reaches the East wall, it curves into a horseshoe curve and runs westerly onto a central peninsula to the end of the line. Where you place towns, yards, industries, passing tracks, scenic elements, etc., is up to you. There are no turning facilities, so this is probably a diesel era plan. A wye could be put in the SE corner to serve the lower (peninsula) end of the RR. Finding a place to put turning facilities at the other (staging) end might be a problem.
What you've drawn looks good.
i think many of us would be envious of the long lengths you have to work with. I think you have to recognize what you have and work with those limitations, which I think you have.
Tony Koester's book on multi-deck design describes what's needed for a good multi-deck layout, if you have any doubts. You make also consider what makes an outstanding layout. And consider how to operate your model railroad
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading